What a completely vacuous crock of shit. There are important differences to understand in cross-cultural communication, but none are inherently superior. Something inane in one culture could be awkward and insulting in another, no matter what it is.
For example if a date or someone I was out with said to me, “Whatever oil well you own, I hope it keeps pumping!”, my cultural background would lead me to believe this was implying I was spending outside my means, as I'm clearly not an oil-tycoon and shouldn't be spending like one. I would then be forced into the situation of trying to downplay my financial situation, the opposite of what the comment intended.
In the case of someone asking me what I do when I'm unemployed, I'd give the answer I've heard many people from my similar background give, "I'm between jobs.", which often results in polite condolences and moving on. “So how do you spend your time?” would be somewhat off-putting as well, as it could imply that you assume I don't work, which would be insulting in my culture.
Cross-cultural communication doesn't have some one-size-fits-all correct answer. It requires effort on the part of all parties.
Even between states. What many people define as "black" culture and language in the US has its roots in southern culture, regardless of race. Cultural and linguistics strategies between people from Washington and Mississippi are pretty stark, regardless of race.
I even remember the main character in Ralph Ellison's "King of the Bingo Game" complain about how "cold and unfriendly" he found other black people from the North compared to where he was from in the South.
If you take an interest in people, it's not hard to continue a conversation.
Instead the author decided
> Hurr I heard a black person say they didn't have a job, better stop talking to him then write an article about not being too inquisitive lest you uncover people fitting into stereotypes!!
Which is racist because it implies the stereotype is true and that you should change your behavior so that you do not upset people over it. Instead of treating the person like a person and continuing the conversation.
I agree. I was a little thrown off by the quick link to being racially insensitive. I figured he just left out a lot of context. It was also a little strange that something like that wasn't disclosed by his significant other (they were engaged) before meeting.
The first thing that really came to mind was why did it matter what race the soon to be father-in-law was. If I was caught in that situation I would've quickly asked "by choice or just bad luck?". Then either politely ask if I may inquire as to what inspired them to choose to be unemployed or sympathize with their situation.
Either way I think if your genuinely interested in a person you find ways to move on in a conversation. In every relationship, whether new or old, you're bound to come across some uncomfortable situations but you just keep moving along.
Though I do like his other question more. It seems like it would lead to revealing the things the person enjoys most.
All the racial dimension aside, because I don't really feel qualified to comment on it, “So how do you spend your time?” is a much more interesting question than "What do you do for a living?". I particularly notice that in the States people really tend to identify with their jobs, something that as an outsider is often strange. I lived in Spain for a long time, and it wasn't uncommon to spend a lot of time with someone before having any more than the vaguest idea of what they do for a living, something that would be unthinkable in the US (at least in NYC and CA where I've spent most of my time there). As the OP notes, the answers that come from asking people about their time are likely to be more interesting because they're more likely to tell you about things they're passionate about, which is generally much more interesting than their job.
Just wondering, are race and culture really almost 100% correlated in the US? The article seems to imply so pretty directly (conflating the words "race" and "culture" like they're interchangeable).
This is terrible and very overly dramatic. This whole "white guilt" thing is getting old. I talk to everyone the same way, and have never had an issue with a conversation strictly because of someones race. White people can be unemployed too, and when you ask someone what they do for a living, its up to them as to where the conversation goes next. I live in South Florida, a cultural melting pot, and have never tailored my conversation to someones ethnicity.
Just treat people how you would expect them to treat you. The rest is up to them, and it's not your fault if they don't treat you how you expect.
White people, especially well-off, career-minded ones seem to need to re-learn the art of small talk. It really isn't that hard. You talk about anything but that which is important.
Try the weather. Yes, the weather. Three sentences on that, and you're ready to get more ambitious. Sports is the next rung on the ladder. Even if you don't follow sports, you can still talk about sports. Your kids might play. You might have had that one season of baseball you quit after three weeks. You can't live in this country without having had some experience concerning sports.
You'd be absolutely amazed at what you can learn about a person with nothing more than small talk.
Or maybe that's why they're well-off? Because they're career-minded and prefer to talk about important things rather than wasting time talking about weather and sports (sports actually being a possible land mine topic as well).
The blog banner "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." means absolutely nothing beyond saying what we all trivially accept (though the latter half is true), that anyone can say what they like within the law's limits.
Entitlement implies a right and a right demands an obligation on the part of others. There is no obligation at all in respect of someone's opinion so what can the statement possibly mean? We should stop talking about entitlement in this loose way.
I find "what's your profession?" or "what is your daily job?" questions to be much more conscious than "what you do for living". When people ask me what I do for living, I tend to answer "I breathe". Because having a job isn't really required to live.
Hacker News these days is like Tumblr/Jezebel but with venture capital and "look at my startup-to-be nifty gadget" instead of "thin privilege is..." and "we need to have a conversation about manhood in America".
Not reason, but sensibility. Not engagement with facts, but avoidance of conflict.
I thought it was just me. The good news is it's an ebb and flow. It comes and goes a few days apart. When I first noticed it I freaked out because that's how it happened at Digg and Reddit. It began with the politicization of topics then the over-politicization of topics and before you know it the moderates left and the fanatics ruled. On hacker news there's enough variety to balance it all out. For now. And hopefully for a long time. Older members should know what I'm talking about.
For example if a date or someone I was out with said to me, “Whatever oil well you own, I hope it keeps pumping!”, my cultural background would lead me to believe this was implying I was spending outside my means, as I'm clearly not an oil-tycoon and shouldn't be spending like one. I would then be forced into the situation of trying to downplay my financial situation, the opposite of what the comment intended.
In the case of someone asking me what I do when I'm unemployed, I'd give the answer I've heard many people from my similar background give, "I'm between jobs.", which often results in polite condolences and moving on. “So how do you spend your time?” would be somewhat off-putting as well, as it could imply that you assume I don't work, which would be insulting in my culture.
Cross-cultural communication doesn't have some one-size-fits-all correct answer. It requires effort on the part of all parties.